Question about Critical Mass

[skanking biker]

There are 2 isues here

1. Were they breaking the law

2. did the police improperly enforce the law.


I think people are confusing both of them.


Back to the other topic, i would add: Indeed, the whole point of civil disobediance is to get arrested in order to show how silly the law is in the first place in order to get it changed. It is a tactic to get the law changed. But you cant have it both ways--either you break the law and tkae the punishment OR you don't and try and peacefully have the law changed.

[recursive]

CM proponents claim it wouldn't be safe for the mass to be passed by a motor vehicle. At the same time, they claim it is possible to safely ride in traffic. If bicycles are to be an accepted form of transportation on the roads, CMs need to make up their mind, because the justification for their actions supports the idea that bikes can not be safely operated side by side with motor traffic.

[brokenrobot]

brokenrobot, chould you provide such evidence aka a study that CM has helped or articals from real news sources (I do not accept wikipedia nor intermedia nor blogs) that have said that CM is a good thing.

I understand your concerns re: source validity completely. I myself, for example, do not accept any source in which the Church of Reunification or any other known cult has an ownership stake; any source in which Rupert Murdoch has an ownership stake or on whose board he sits; or any source whose editorial board includes members of the Hudson Institute, the Independence Institute, or any other right-wing fringe group dedicated to the dissolution of the United States government. I consider such sources suspect at best, and believe that most of them are actively aiding the enemies of the United States and the forces dedicated to overturning its Constitution.

So, as to sources that perhaps neither of us like, but which I think you'll have to agree are authoritative,I give you the New York Times. This editorial ran on December 5 of last year.
The sight of hundreds or even thousands of bicycles on busy streets is something that sounds more like Beijing than New York, but on Manhattan's avenues, it has become a regular event. In monthly rides meant to promote healthful and nonpolluting commuting, cyclists have gathered and then pedaled for a few blocks en masse, often up Park Avenue from a parking lot at Union Square.

The ride, called Critical Mass, is part of a grass-roots effort that has taken hold in major American cities and hundreds of other cities worldwide. In recent months, though, what for six years had been a generally uneventful spin in New York City has drawn the ire of the police, who regard the bikers as a safety and security hazard and illegal to boot. The city has asked a federal court to halt the rides unless organizers get a permit, as they would for a parade. That could bring the rides to an unfortunate end.

Some cyclists have contributed to the showdown with unnecessarily aggressive behavior like blocking traffic and running red lights. Even so, the police seem to have come on awfully strong. Other cities, among them Chicago and San Francisco, have found ways to reconcile bikers and the police. But politics and increasingly frayed tempers have complicated matters in New York.

The turning point seems to have occurred before the Republican convention last summer, when regularly scheduled rides - on the last Friday of the month - took on overtones of a political protest. In July, some cyclists headed to the F.D.R. Drive, where bike riding is not allowed. At the end of August, just before the convention, Critical Mass attracted 5,000 riders. As part of a general crackdown on protests without permits, the police detained hundreds of riders - including, apparently, innocent bystanders. Since then, scores more Critical Mass cyclists have been arrested.

Norman Siegel, a prominent civil rights lawyer who is representing five riders whose bicycles were confiscated, agrees that Critical Mass riders should obey traffic laws. But he has reasonable concerns about what the police want. By petitioning to bar future rides by groups of even a few cyclists unless they have permits, he says, the city is seeking to pre-empt Critical Mass altogether.

Critical Mass has no organizers, and there's no way to know how many riders will participate in any given month. That's a problem if a permit to ride must be regularly obtained. The movement - which takes its name from a documentary film about cycling - spread from San Francisco in the early 1990's through the Internet and word of mouth. Various Web sites keep riders informed, but there is no hierarchy, and there's no formal leader of the pack. Critical Mass by its nature is no leaders and all followers, joined together by a love of cycling.

There is no law keeping bikes off the streets. The sudden appearance of thousands of riders obviously poses a challenge, but need not inconvenience others if riders do their part and obey traffic laws as they should. There are no doubt scofflaws among Critical Mass bikers, just as there are among car drivers. But the problem now is that instead of issuing summonses, the police have been arresting the cyclists, handcuffing and taking them away. That is not the best use of New York's finest.

In a city like New York, with heavy traffic congestion and overburdened mass transit, bicycles offer an alternative that ought to be encouraged. Bicycles do not create dangerous air emissions. They offer health benefits to the riders. And they're easier on the city's aging roads.

Past efforts to encourage commuter biking included the path on Sixth Avenue, a project of Mayor Ed Koch. Few people used it, many complained about it, and it was abandoned. But times are changing. As a way to promote cycling, Critical Mass has legs, in more ways than one. The city should work with riders to defuse their disagreement so the monthly rides can go on, in an orderly, lawful and safe way.

Copyright 2004, New York Times

If you're still interested, there are more than 100 additional articles from the major media archived at stillweride.org - including letters from the neighborhood associations in areas NYC CM rides through, stating the neighborhoods' view that CM is vastly preferable to the auto traffic they are subjected to every day. The vast majority of all archived articles are NOT from Indymedia or the like (though some are) - and the vast majority of those that take an editorial standpoint at all come down on CM's side of the current feud with the NYPD. In the interest of not overwhelming this thread, I'll refrain from posting all 100+ of them here.

In the interest of fair play, can you provide articles and/or statistically valid studies proving CM makes conditions worse for all riders?

[brokenrobot]

There are 2 isues here

1. Were they breaking the law

2. did the police improperly enforce the law.


I think people are confusing both of them.


Back to the other topic, i would add: Indeed, the whole point of civil disobediance is to get arrested in order to show how silly the law is in the first place in order to get it changed. It is a tactic to get the law changed. But you cant have it both ways--either you break the law and tkae the punishment OR you don't and try and peacefully have the law changed.

Or, as is happening in New York, you ride legally and are arrested anyway. CM ain't civil disobedience - it's a legal bike ride. It's not even disorderly conduct - it's impossible to obey an order to disperse that's never given. If I run a red light, ticket me; I'll gladly pay my fine. But if you arrest me because some other guys I've never met have run a red light, you'd best be prepared to defend yourself in court.

There is no need to change the law, as the law is in our favor; we simply have to get the police to enforce existing laws instead of making up new ones as they go.

For the record, I'm totally in favor of enforcement of the red lights. The City of New York says a million drivers run them every day in the city; if the NYPD would start ticketing every red-light-runner, by the time you add the 80 to 300 cyclists who run them once a month at CM to that million daily drivers, you've just about got enough revenue to run the city! Top that off with enforcement of the littering fines, and there's enough money to give every resident full health care. I can barely wait till I'm mayor...

[mpop]

If you're still interested, there are more than 100 additional articles from the major media archived at stillweride.org - including letters from the neighborhood associations in areas NYC CM rides through, stating the neighborhoods' view that CM is vastly preferable to the auto traffic they are subjected to every day. The vast majority of all archived articles are NOT from Indymedia or the like (though some are) - and the vast majority of those that take an editorial standpoint at all come down on CM's side of the current feud with the NYPD. In the interest of not overwhelming this thread, I'll refrain from posting all 100+ of them here.

In the interest of fair play, can you provide articles and/or statistically valid studies proving CM makes conditions worse for all riders?
I stand corrected, and the NY Times, as I do not like their POV at times, is a vaild source good enouph for me.

[mpop]

For the record, I'm totally in favor of enforcement of the red lights. The City of New York says a million drivers run them every day in the city; if the NYPD would start ticketing every red-light-runner, by the time you add the 80 to 300 cyclists who run them once a month at CM to that million daily drivers, you've just about got enough revenue to run the city! Top that off with enforcement of the littering fines, and there's enough money to give every resident full health care. I can barely wait till I'm mayor...


Come to pittsburgh, I agree that tickets for things like that (also lets not forget J-walking, that could bring alot in from the Oakland section) could bring Pittsburgh out of finatual hole we are in here, I just might vote for you if that was your platform here.


This is one O'Connor that will not be voting for O'Connor in nov, but it not like it will matter, he is the democrate in the race therefor he will win, hay this is Pittsburgh where the 2 parties are democrate and "out of office"

[powertoold]

"CM proponents claim it wouldn't be safe for the mass to be passed by a motor vehicle. At the same time, they claim it is possible to safely ride in traffic."

lol, I don't know about you, but I would think passing a 1000+ cyclists is nothing like passing a single commuter.

[skanking biker]

Or, as is happening in New York, you ride legally and are arrested anyway. CM ain't civil disobedience - it's a legal bike ride. It's not even disorderly conduct - it's impossible to obey an order to disperse that's never given. If I run a red light, ticket me; I'll gladly pay my fine. But if you arrest me because some other guys I've never met have run a red light, you'd best be prepared to defend yourself in court.

There is no need to change the law, as the law is in our favor; we simply have to get the police to enforce existing laws instead of making up new ones as they go.

For the record, I'm totally in favor of enforcement of the red lights. The City of New York says a million drivers run them every day in the city; if the NYPD would start ticketing every red-light-runner, by the time you add the 80 to 300 cyclists who run them once a month at CM to that million daily drivers, you've just about got enough revenue to run the city! Top that off with enforcement of the littering fines, and there's enough money to give every resident full health care. I can barely wait till I'm mayor...

Ok--again you are switching premises on me--I was responding to an earlier post that equated CM with civil disobediance. If you believe it is not, then thats an enitely seperate issue---i'd be happy to discuss that---but i was proceeding based on the assumptions made the the previous poster---so stop taking my replies out of context

[randya]

But you cant have it both ways--either you break the law and take the punishment OR you don't and try and peacefully have the law changed.
BZZZT. Wrong. You break the law, get arrested and take your case to the courts. The courts have already ruled that the NYPD was in the wrong, and the NYPD have chosen to ignore and/or subvert that ruling. The NYPD no longer has a leg to stand on, they are simply engaged in harassment and illegal behavior of their own at this point.

[skanking biker]

Again, if you would care to read my posts in cotnext, i specifically said that there are 2 issues: 1 whether an individual is intentionally violating the law; if not 2) whether the police are unlawfully enforcing an existing law.

i dont disagree that the police may be misapplying a statute. But that is a seperate issue. However, that was not the discussion i was having. So before you jump down my throat please try to read the posst in context.

My comments which you qouted were accurate--you cant break the law and then expect not to get arrested. Your post assumes that people were NOT breaking the law but rather the police were improperly enforcing the law. Thus, the first premise (that an individual was breakign the law) disappears and so does the conclusion that follows (that he cannot legitimately expect not to be arrested).

Therefore, I have no disagreement with you on this point if what you say is true.

[supcom]

BZZZT. Wrong. You break the law, get arrested and take your case to the courts. The courts have already ruled that the NYPD was in the wrong, and the NYPD have choosen to ignore and/or subvert that ruling. The NYPD no longer has a leg to stand on, they are simply engaged in harassment and illegal behavior of their own at this point.

Having read some of the court rulings, my impression is that the federal court made two specific rulings. The first was in response to one or two individuals who had bikes confiscated but ultimately were not charged with a crime. the city claimed that the reason that they did not charge the cyclists was because they afterward they were trying to diffuse the situation and cut everyone some slack. The court ruled that the city could not confiscate bikes unless they planned to bring charges. In no way was this a ruling that CM was legal or that the police could not confiscate bikes. Only that they had to charge the owners with a crime if they took their bikes.

The second ruling was in response to the city's request for an injunction to prohibit CM rides while the city pursues a court ruling over the whole issue of CM. This injunction was not a request to have CM declared illegal - only to get the court to disallow CM until the whole issue could be litigated. The federal court basically ruled that the issue of CM legality needed to work its way through NY state courts first and threw out the request on the basis of it not having jurisdiction. Once again, the federal court did not rule that CM was legal. It specifically refused to take any stand in the matter. It did not say that the city could not stop a CM or arrest a participant for illegally parading, or any other violation of the law. It merely said that it would not issue an injunction barring CM.

Since I am not a lawyer, nor do I keep up with every development in the legal filings of NYC CM, there may have been some other rulings that I am unaware of. Perhaps someone else here can provide additional detail and/or correct my interpretation.

[nycm'er]

Keep in mind that red light running and 'traffic blocking are not what people are being charged with. Dis Con and Parading without a permit. not even sure what you have to do to get charged with that, in a legal sense, and I am charged with it.

[brokenrobot]

Having read some of the court rulings, my impression is that the federal court made two specific rulings. The first was in response to one or two individuals who had bikes confiscated but ultimately were not charged with a crime. the city claimed that the reason that they did not charge the cyclists was because they afterward they were trying to diffuse the situation and cut everyone some slack. The court ruled that the city could not confiscate bikes unless they planned to bring charges. In no way was this a ruling that CM was legal or that the police could not confiscate bikes. Only that they had to charge the owners with a crime if they took their bikes.

The second ruling was in response to the city's request for an injunction to prohibit CM rides while the city pursues a court ruling over the whole issue of CM. This injunction was not a request to have CM declared illegal - only to get the court to disallow CM until the whole issue could be litigated. The federal court basically ruled that the issue of CM legality needed to work its way through NY state courts first and threw out the request on the basis of it not having jurisdiction. Once again, the federal court did not rule that CM was legal. It specifically refused to take any stand in the matter. It did not say that the city could not stop a CM or arrest a participant for illegally parading, or any other violation of the law. It merely said that it would not issue an injunction barring CM.

Since I am not a lawyer, nor do I keep up with every development in the legal filings of NYC CM, there may have been some other rulings that I am unaware of. Perhaps someone else here can provide additional detail and/or correct my interpretation.

You're mostly right on both counts - except that the injunction sought (and denied on jurisdictional grounds) was not, I believe, temporary. Note also that the suit wasn't brought in Fed court *while* winding its way through the state - no suit had been brought in state court at that time. And the Bray case was 5 people, not 1 or 2.

Here's the trouble with the first part: NYPD continues to confiscate bikes without bringing charges; they've just swiched from cutting locks while owners wave keys at them and shout "Please don't cut my lock! I'll unlock it for you!" while claiming that the bikes are evidence to doing the same while claiming that the bikes are abandoned.

The trouble with the second part, in my view, is that none of the officers who perjured themselves in federal court when the city sought their injunction have been charged. ;)

[slagjumper]

BZZZT. Wrong. You break the law, get arrested and take your case to the courts. The courts have already ruled that the NYPD was in the wrong, and the NYPD have chosen to ignore and/or subvert that ruling. The NYPD no longer has a leg to stand on, they are simply engaged in harassment and illegal behavior of their own at this point.

Perhaps this is why the NYPD went easy on CM last month.

[MACinRWC]

Every day of they year, cyclist ride with fear towards the automobile. Once a month, for a couple hours, it is the other way around. As long as there are a good amount of people, I see no need to stop at stop lights because it holds up the bike traffic behind. For example, when some sporting events end, police often shut down intersections and wave the cars through to ease congestion in the area. So to conclude...I like critical mass. Switching things up is good every once in a while.

[wheel]

Look the the legal groups. I rode in Phoenix CM and we followed the rules.

[MACinRWC]

Yea.

[urban_assault]

Every day of they year, cyclist ride with fear towards the automobile. Once a month, for a couple hours, it is the other way around. As long as there are a good amount of people, I see no need to stop at stop lights because it holds up the bike traffic behind. For example, when some sporting events end, police often shut down intersections and wave the cars through to ease congestion in the area. So to conclude...I like critical mass. Switching things up is good every once in a while.

Thanks for resurrecting a 3 year old thread to tell us.
:rolleyes::D

[ferd_miller]

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc107/ferd_miller/tater_tots_hyuk.jpg

[MACinRWC]

I'm just that powerful.